1 files changed, 0 insertions, 98 deletions
diff --git a/debian/patches-rt/list_bl-fixup-bogus-lockdep-warning.patch b/debian/patches-rt/list_bl-fixup-bogus-lockdep-warning.patch
deleted file mode 100644
index 1938c0b32..000000000
--- a/debian/patches-rt/list_bl-fixup-bogus-lockdep-warning.patch
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,98 +0,0 @@
-From: Josh Cartwright <joshc@ni.com>
-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 00:04:25 -0500
-Subject: [PATCH] list_bl: fixup bogus lockdep warning
-Origin: https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/projects/rt/5.2/older/patches-5.2.17-rt9.tar.xz
-
-At first glance, the use of 'static inline' seems appropriate for
-INIT_HLIST_BL_HEAD().
-
-However, when a 'static inline' function invocation is inlined by gcc,
-all callers share any static local data declared within that inline
-function.
-
-This presents a problem for how lockdep classes are setup.  raw_spinlocks, for
-example, when CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK,
-
-	# define raw_spin_lock_init(lock)				\
-	do {								\
-		static struct lock_class_key __key;			\
-									\
-		__raw_spin_lock_init((lock), #lock, &__key);		\
-	} while (0)
-
-When this macro is expanded into a 'static inline' caller, like
-INIT_HLIST_BL_HEAD():
-
-	static inline INIT_HLIST_BL_HEAD(struct hlist_bl_head *h)
-	{
-		h->first = NULL;
-		raw_spin_lock_init(&h->lock);
-	}
-
-...the static local lock_class_key object is made a function static.
-
-For compilation units which initialize invoke INIT_HLIST_BL_HEAD() more
-than once, then, all of the invocations share this same static local
-object.
-
-This can lead to some very confusing lockdep splats (example below).
-Solve this problem by forcing the INIT_HLIST_BL_HEAD() to be a macro,
-which prevents the lockdep class object sharing.
-
- =============================================
- [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
- 4.4.4-rt11 #4 Not tainted
- ---------------------------------------------
- kswapd0/59 is trying to acquire lock:
-  (&h->lock#2){+.+.-.}, at: mb_cache_shrink_scan
-
- but task is already holding lock:
-  (&h->lock#2){+.+.-.}, at:  mb_cache_shrink_scan
-
- other info that might help us debug this:
-  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
-
-        CPU0
-        ----
-   lock(&h->lock#2);
-   lock(&h->lock#2);
-
-  *** DEADLOCK ***
-
-  May be due to missing lock nesting notation
-
- 2 locks held by kswapd0/59:
-  #0:  (shrinker_rwsem){+.+...}, at: rt_down_read_trylock
-  #1:  (&h->lock#2){+.+.-.}, at: mb_cache_shrink_scan
-
-Reported-by: Luis Claudio R. Goncalves <lclaudio@uudg.org>
-Tested-by: Luis Claudio R. Goncalves <lclaudio@uudg.org>
-Signed-off-by: Josh Cartwright <joshc@ni.com>
-Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
----
- include/linux/list_bl.h |   12 +++++++-----
- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
-
---- a/include/linux/list_bl.h
-+++ b/include/linux/list_bl.h
-@@ -43,13 +43,15 @@ struct hlist_bl_node {
- 	struct hlist_bl_node *next, **pprev;
- };
- 
--static inline void INIT_HLIST_BL_HEAD(struct hlist_bl_head *h)
--{
--	h->first = NULL;
- #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE
--	raw_spin_lock_init(&h->lock);
-+#define INIT_HLIST_BL_HEAD(h)		\
-+do {					\
-+	(h)->first = NULL;		\
-+	raw_spin_lock_init(&(h)->lock);	\
-+} while (0)
-+#else
-+#define INIT_HLIST_BL_HEAD(h) (h)->first = NULL
- #endif
--}
- 
- static inline void INIT_HLIST_BL_NODE(struct hlist_bl_node *h)
- {